MI MI - Julia Niswender, 23, EMU student, Ypsilanti, 10 Dec 2012 - #4

[DazednConfuzed09]

Allegations do not equal fact in court. The 2000 allegations, what was the result? That would make a big difference to the probate court. Many people are certain as to the "known of the history of abuse, violence, perversion and avoidance, by the adults KT and JT", but allegations are not enough to prove that history.

I think this fits very well with what has been published recently. It's too bad that names aren't mentioned yet, but there will come a day when they will be! As everyone keeps saying, the truth will eventually come out. It certainly will, but it should prove to be a lot different than what most on here are expecting.

 

[black_squirrel]

More News - JT's lawyer has asked for a Motion Hearing. I called Circuit Court and they did verify that a Motion Hearing will be held. It is scheduled for Sept 11th at 9:30AM. I wonder what his lawyer may be up to now..... Possibly trying to suppress some or all of the documentation that was provided by Ypsi(as he requested) so that at the trial; the jury will not hear or read it. Just a guess on my part. As far as I know, the trial is still scheduled to begin on Sept 21st.

According to JT's lawyer, the affidavit has "no facts". Since he is highly critical of the affidavit, he might motion to have the case thrown out because there was no probable cause for the search on the computer. I would be very curious about the opinion of legal experts about the quality of this affidavit.
Let me play (devil's?) advocate for a moment:
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...sectomy-fbi-profiler-points-stepdad/71507420/

■ On Dec. 13, 2014, disposable latex gloves found on her bedroom floor were submitted to the Michigan State Police's Crime Lab and it was later determined that male DNA was inside of the gloves. According to the lab results, two different male "DNA donors" were discovered within the gloves. Turnquist's DNA was not a match for one of the samples and the other was too weak for comparison and could only be described as belonging to a male.

First of all, 2014 probably should be 2012. Otherwise this DNA couldn't have been included in the November 2014 affidavit. Probably a typo from the Detroit Free Press. This evidence does not exclude anybody. If one of the samples is believed to be from the perpetrator, then this would exclude women.
Also, how is it, that they can determine that the two samples do not come from the same person, but they cannot determine whether the weaker sample comes from JT?

■ Other samples taken from the body were determined to be male DNA and tested positive for seminal fluid. A lab scientist from the MSP Crime Lab stated in 2014 that the swabs collected from her body indicated the suspect "is consistent with a male who had a vasectomy." Rose Niswender, Julia Niswender's grandmother, told police that Turnquist had a vasectomy after the birth of his first and only child.

So again, the perp is likely to be male. People who had a vasectomy cannot be excluded. But this does not seem to exclude people who did not have a vasectomy.

■ Coppock stated she interviewed Niswender's best friend on Dec. 14, 2012, and the woman told her that Niswender disclosed two years prior to her death that Turnquist did "inappropriate things" to her sexually, growing up as a child. The friend, who is not being named by the Free Press, also stated that Turnquist also made inappropriate remarks to her, referring to her as "his girlfriend" and asking at one point if she was "coming to cuddle" with him. But the friend, who was re-interviewed on Feb. 15, 2013, later denied ever making those statements to Coppock.

There were no other witnesses to these statements? If the person writing the affidavit is the only witness that this was ever said, with no other police officers present, this does not seem very strong. What are "inappropiate things". This seems too vague. The affidavit does not specify what those
things are?

■ Rose Niswender, who has spoken publicly against Turnquist, described Turnquist to police as "a loner who engages in avoidance behavior with family members and very controlling." She accused him of drinking excessively after Niswender's death and said he became more "quick tempered." She also said she suspected him of sexually molesting Niswender.

This is just hearsay. That some person has "suspicions" does not seem good enough to me. It would be different if she had witnessed something,
or if Julia had confided in her.

■ On Feb. 11, 2013, police interviewed Turnquist's ex-wife, who hadn't spoken with him since they divorced in 1999, and she told them that he was raised in an "extremely abusive environment." Turnquist's stepmother told police that his biological mother allowed her husband to severely beat him when he was a boy, and she suspected he was sexually abused as well.

I'm not sure why stuff like this is in an affidavit. So having been abused makes him a likely suspect? Should we be rounding up all people who have been abused in their childhood?

■ Police said Turnquist sat calmly in the lobby chair and appeared to be "unemotional and composed" after finding out about her death.

This just seems to subjective. Turnquist seems more of an introvert, and introverts are often misunderstood and described as appearing cold. He also might just have been in a shock. If you actually watch some of the interviews, he does seem emotional and does loose a bit of his composure.


It seems to me that the affidavit is high in quantity (12 pages) but low in quality. On the other hand, the standard for a search warrant may not be so high, so it might be enough for a probably cause. I wonder how a legal experts sees this affidavit.

 

[black_squirrel]

Here's some info about the standards of "probable cause"

Information Needed to Establish Probable Cause
The Fourth Amendment doesn’t define probable cause. Its meaning remains fuzzy. What is clear (after 200 years of court interpretations) is that the affidavits police officers submit to judges have to identify objectively suspicious activities rather than simply recite the officer’s subjective beliefs. The affidavits have to establish more than a suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, but do not have to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The information in an affidavit need not be in a form that would be admissible at trial. (For example, a judge or magistrate may consider hearsay evidence that seems reliable, even if a judge might exclude it at trial.) However, the circumstances set forth in an affidavit, viewed as a whole, should demonstrate the reliability of the information (Illinois v. Gates, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1983). In general, when deciding whether to issue a search warrant, a judge or magistrate will likely consider information in an affidavit reliable if it comes from any of these sources:

a confidential police informant whose past reliability has been established or who has firsthand knowledge of illegal goings-on

an informant who implicates himself or herself as well as the suspect

an informant whose information appears to be correct after at least partial verification by the police

a victim of a crime related to the search

a witness to the crime related to the search, or

another police officer.

Example: Hoping to obtain a warrant to search Olive Martini’s backyard, a police officer submits an affidavit to a magistrate. The affidavit states that “the undersigned is informed that Olive operates an illegal still in her backyard.” The magistrate should not issue a search warrant based on this affidavit. Because the affidavit is too vague and the source of the information is unstated, there’s no way for the magistrate to evaluate its reliability. The affidavit doesn’t establish probable cause.

Example: Same case. The affidavit states that “I am a social acquaintance of Olive Martini. On three occasions in the past two weeks, I have attended parties at Martini’s house. On each occasion, I have personally observed Martini serving alcohol from a still in Martini’s backyard. I have personally tasted the drink and know it to be alcoholic. I had no connection to the police when I attended these parties.” This affidavit is reliable enough to establish probable cause for issuance of a warrant authorizing the police to search Martini’s backyard. The affidavit provides detailed, firsthand information from an ordinary witness (without police connections) that indicates criminal activity is taking place.

This article was excerpted from The Criminal Law Handbook, by Paul Bergman, J.D., and Sara J. Berman, J.D.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrants-and-probable-cause.html

 

[Deleted member 132804]

All along we believed she was scheduled to work at Walmart, we never heard about a cleaning job until this week. We don't know who gave a statement to police about the cleaning work, as far as I can tell. I can only assume LE checked with the "employer/stepfather" to confirm, and nothing we have seen to this point conflicts with the statement that she was to do a cleaning job.

I'm starting to understand why YPD is so interested in JT making a formal statement about all of his whereabouts Sunday night/Monday day/night etc.. Seems like JT would have inquired about Julia not showing up at a cleaning job Monday AM much sooner.

 

[Deleted member 132804]

We all assumed her missing work meant Walmart but in light of this information maybe it was the cleaning job.

Wouldn't you think a 1) no show for work coupled with 2) several attempts to reach her by phone, 3) car never moved, 4) Alarm going off SOMEONE would have checked into this sooner than Tuesday evening?!

I have an adult son, who lives on his own and I can tell you if he was to be somewhere that I arranged and I couldn't reach him I would have been all kinds of over that...on that Monday.

The only other thing I can think of is that perhaps this sort of thing was not uncommon occurrence for Julia, but there has been nothing reported to suggest that. She seemed, based on all accounts, a responsible and conscientious young woman. IMO

Now, I'm surprise the roommates were the one's to call for help when Julia was missing too long, since Sister/Mom/Stepfather had been contacted about her missing work. It seems unlike Julia to miss work at Walmart and not call in if sick or something. She just doesn't seem like a no call - no show type. She met with her sisters for lunch at Walmart Sunday and they knew she was going home to study for an exam. She had no plans to go out Sunday night. Her car was at the apartment. Ypsilanti isn't that far from Monroe, no one from the family drove up on sight?

<modsnip>

 

[georgiasblu]

I'm starting to understand why YPD is so interested in JT making a formal statement about all of his whereabouts Sunday night/Monday day/night etc.. Seems like JT would have inquired about Julia not showing up at a cleaning job Monday AM much sooner.

Maybe there wasn't a cleaning job. Maybe that was a story to explain phone call(s) between Julia and JT.
There is an awful lot of smoke here pointing JT's direction.

 

[Mountaingazer]

Maybe there wasn't a cleaning job. Maybe that was a story to explain phone call(s) between Julia and JT.
There is an awful lot of smoke here pointing JT's direction.

Or maybe he did talk to her about a cleaning job on Sunday, but it was just a way to find out what her plans were that evening.

 

[georgiasblu]

Or maybe he did talk to her about a cleaning job on Sunday, but it was just a way to find out what her plans were that evening.

I find it interesting that whatever happened did so Sunday night after lunch with her sisters and a phone call from JT. Was something said at lunch that concerned JT. Did he perhaps know about her date? It seems as if Julia's murder had aspects of control along with punishment. The cutting of the shirt, that seems wierd. Leaving her face down in tub with the cell phone underneath her. JMHO

 

[bessie]

I'm just getting a chance to catch up and absorb the latest news. Trojan, what can I say. My heart goes out to you. Please take care of yourself and keep the faith. Stay focused on what's ahead, because Justice for Julia will come.

 

[black_squirrel]

I find it interesting that whatever happened did so Sunday night after lunch with her sisters and a phone call from JT. Was something said at lunch that concerned JT. Did he perhaps know about her date? It seems as if Julia's murder had aspects of control along with punishment. The cutting of the shirt, that seems wierd. Leaving her face down in tub with the cell phone underneath her. JMHO

If it is true that JT disapproved of Julia dating men from other races, then Julia probably wouldn't have told him about it. The relation between Julia and JT seems cordial, but not close. I believe Jennifer wasn't aware of the saturday-date either (or at least claims that). It seems though that Julia didn't necessarily keep her family up to date about the men she was dating.

I agree that Julia's murder had aspects of control. But not so much punishment. My apologies, but what follows may
be a bit graphic.

The murderer bound her, but did not hit or stab her. It is remarkable to me that there weren't any wounds, and hardly any bruises. This suggests to me that the perpetrator attacked her by surprise, got her unconscious (perhaps by strangulation?), restrained her and removed her clothes while she was unconscious (because it is nearly impossible to cut off someones clothes with a cutting device, without leaving any wounds or scratches if they are resisting), and then drowned her. It is not clear if there was a sexual act. The semen may not necessarily have been from the perpetrator but could be from a male friend. If there was some sort of sexual assault, it may have been while she was unconscious or deceased. I think it could be that the removing of the clothes was also to throw off investigators to make it appear as a sexual assault.

 

[black_squirrel]

How did they establish the time of death in this case? If the body was submerged since death, it might complicate the estimation. If body temperature was used then it might matter what the temperature of the water was. The perp
could have been cooling the body, thus making the time of death appear earlier than the actual time. The perp could even have been cooling the body with ice, slowing the decomposition etc.

 

[bessie]

This is still very puzzling to me. How did Julia's blood get on the gloves? She wasn't bleeding except in her mouth from biting her tongue.
I am also wondering how the blood got inside the glove. Taking off latex gloves almost always turns the gloves inside out. So this is consistent
with someone touching the blood, then taking of the gloves, leaving blood on the inside and finger prints/DNA on the outside. But as I said before
I think it would be really, really stupid of the perp to leave behind the gloves. On the other hand, it might be tricky to take someone else's gloves and
put blood on the inside, without leaving your own DNA etc.. I hope they have good pictures of the gloves, because that might be enlightening.

I interpreted the statement differently. "Gloves" is plural. By observing the twisted pair of gloves lying on the floor, they could discern "a dark substance" (blood) on, in between, or "within" the two, but not necessarily "inside" either glove. JMO

"Lying on the floor, in front of the closed bathroom door, was a pair of white latex gloves, twisted or intertwined with each other," according to the search warrant affidavit. "A dark substance could be seen within the gloves, later confirmed by the Michigan State Police Crime Lab as being Julia's blood."
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor...ents_detail_allegations_a.html#incart_m-rpt-2

 

[bessie]

Please stick with what has been reported in MSM or shared here by the Verified Insiders.

Thanks.

 

[DazednConfuzed09]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...ments-reveal-why-focus-is-on-stepdad/35069714

In this news report they seem to think that Julia was interracial dating.

I wonder when someone will post a copy of the Search Warrant and Affidavit online...either intact or redacted. Does anyone know if they are going to do this??

 

[caspermi]

Interesting twists and turns in this case.

Recovered semen apparently from someone who had a vasectomy. Grandma states JT had a vasectomy but has LE confirmed this through medical records?

If the semen is indeed from a male with a vasectomy, approximately 90% of the male population is eliminated as suspects. It appears that JT is not in that group.

New twist, JN&#8217;s sister claims in a Detroit Free Press post that JN&#8217;s boyfriend had a vasectomy. As I recall, no previous public mention that she had a boyfriend at the time of her death.

According to everything I researched, DNA samples can still be found in the semen of men with vasectomies. If so, there appears to be no DNA match to JT otherwise he would have been already arrested.

No DNA match to JT from the latex gloves.

Best friend originally testifies that JN confided in her that JT sexually abused her. A few months later she recants her story. Why the sudden reversal?

He passed not one, but two lie detector tests. I know that they&#8217;re not conclusive but he still passed two.

As to the FBI Profiler making JT his prime suspect, remember Richard Jewell (96 Olympic bombing). Through the analysis of the FBI profilers, the FBI made him their principal suspect. How did that turn out?

The affidavit only includes the minimal amount of information for a judge to sign off on the search warrant. That being said, I believe LE has other evidence pointing to JT that has not been made public. Things like:

&#8226; JT&#8217;s and JN&#8217;s cell phone records &#8211; any calls, texts or emails between the two on Dec 9 and Dec 10

&#8226; JT&#8217;s cell phone location history &#8211; was he in the area of JN&#8217;s apartment on Dec 9 and Dec 10? I&#8217;m assuming he carried his phone with him at all times since he was running a business. (if you have an android phone, go to www.google.com/locationhistory to see how easy it is). LE works with the cell providers using much more sophisticated methods.

&#8226; Based on cell phone location history, LE probably has a good idea of where he was the days prior to the murder. They want to interview him to get him on record of his activities and whether they match the location data. Basically looking for inconsistencies.

&#8226; There could be damning statements about JT from other friends, roommates and associates of JN.

&#8226; LE has a more accurate timeline of JN last hours than what is publicly released. Could any time information be extracted from her phone since it was submerged under water? (like a watch stopping) Would the water disable the phone to the point it stopped working and pinging the nearest cell tower to determine the time it went offline (time of murder).

 

[Spellbound]

According to JT's lawyer, the affidavit has "no facts". Since he is highly critical of the affidavit, he might motion to have the case thrown out because there was no probable cause for the search on the computer. I would be very curious about the opinion of legal experts about the quality of this affidavit.
.

quote snipped by me

Why would the child *advertiser censored* case be thrown out, since the warrant was not made for that purpose, but to gain evidence for the murder investigation? I believe it is allowed to request a search of computers if there is a reason to suspect information may be there that would assist in the investigation. Such as work records indicating Julia worked for JT, phone calls between Julia and family members, use of the family computer by Julia and/or other family. Seems to me there is probable cause.... not for *advertiser censored*, but for the death. When they discovered possible child *advertiser censored*, that information was turned over to Monroe, and the *advertiser censored* investigation has been handled by them. Two different cases, so why toss the current trial for a warrant delivered on a different case?

Trying to understand, but a lawyer I am not. So much to sift through.

 

[dmc43613]

I interpreted the statement differently. "Gloves" is plural. By observing the twisted pair of gloves lying on the floor, they could discern "a dark substance" (blood) on, in between, or "within" the two, but not necessarily "inside" either glove. JMO

"Lying on the floor, in front of the closed bathroom door, was a pair of white latex gloves, twisted or intertwined with each other," according to the search warrant affidavit. "A dark substance could be seen within the gloves, later confirmed by the Michigan State Police Crime Lab as being Julia's blood."
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor...ents_detail_allegations_a.html#incart_m-rpt-2

Could the gloves have been IN her mouth?

 

[monster12]

Could the gloves have been IN her mouth?

I've been thinking of that also. What if they put their fingers in her mouth( to insert or remove something), she tried biting them (if she was still conscious), bit her own tongue and drew blood. Then the perp realized the blood on their fingers so they put the gloves on to protect them from the rest of whatever they did.
Or maybe they had the gloves on inside out, got blood on them from her mouth, then when they removed them, it was now "within" the glove. It would all depend how the situation began and what events occurred to know. [emoji17]

Orrrrr if the gloves were just to throw off the LE, maybe she was bleeding elsewhere (despite them saying she wasn't) and they used them to "wipe" the spot and put them on the ground.
At first we didn't know all these details and it seems the story is now turning as more details are released. Is it possible there are more documents that contain more information that we don't know about? I don't really know how all this goes in an investigation but I would imagine there is more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sophieandme]

I'm not up with the latest technology, but do all alarm clocks have to be manually "armed" daily?

If so and assuming most people set their alarms at bedtime, that might indicate a TOD after her usual bedtime. Do we know what time her roommate said the alarm went off Monday morning? Was it before or after KT said JT left their home that morning?

 

[indianwin2001]

I've been thinking of that also. What if they put their fingers in her mouth( to insert or remove something), she tried biting them (if she was still conscious), bit her own tongue and drew blood. Then the perp realized the blood on their fingers so they put the gloves on to protect them from the rest of whatever they did.
Or maybe they had the gloves on inside out, got blood on them from her mouth, then when they removed them, it was now "within" the glove. It would all depend how the situation began and what events occurred to know. [emoji17]

Orrrrr if the gloves were just to throw off the LE, maybe she was bleeding elsewhere (despite them saying she wasn't) and they used them to "wipe" the spot and put them on the ground.
At first we didn't know all these details and it seems the story is now turning as more details are released. Is it possible there are more documents that contain more information that we don't know about? I don't really know how all this goes in an investigation but I would imagine there is more?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LE has a lot more information than they release to the public.